"When the real Cavaignac comes, we shall struggle together with you, in the same ranks," wrote the *Rabochaya Gazeta* in no. 80, addressing us—the organ of that very Menshevik party, a member of which, Minister Tsereteli, went so far in his infamous speech as to threaten the disarming of the Petrograd workers.

The quoted utterance of the *Rabochaya Gazeta* particularly starkly exposes the fundamental errors of both ruling parties in Russia, both the Menshevik and the Socialist Revolutionary, and therefore deserves attention. You are seeking Cavaignac at the wrong time or in the wrong place—such is the meaning of the ministerial organ's reasoning.

Let us recall the class role of Cavaignac. In February 1848 the monarchy was overthrown in France. Bourgeois republicans are in power. They, just like our Cadets, want "order," meaning by this the restoration and consolidation of the monarchical instruments of oppression of the masses: the police, the standing army, privileged bureaucracy. They, just like our Cadets, want to put an end to the revolution, hating the revolutionary proletariat, with its still very unclear "social" (that is, socialist) aspirations at that time. They, just like our Cadets, treated with merciless hostility the policy of extending the French Revolution to all of Europe, the policy of transforming it into a world proletarian revolution. They, just like our Cadets, skillfully exploited the petty-bourgeois "socialism" of Louis Blanc, taking him into the ministry, transforming him from the leader of socialist workers, which he wanted to be, into an appendage, a lackey of the bourgeoisie.

Such were the class interests, position, and policy of the ruling class.

Another fundamental social force was the petty bourgeoisie, wavering, frightened by the red specter, yielding to cries against "anarchists." In its strivings dreamily and phraseologically "socialist," readily calling itself "socialist democracy" (it is precisely this term that the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are now adopting!), the petty bourgeoisie was afraid to entrust itself to the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat, not understanding that this fear condemns it to entrusting itself to the bourgeoisie. For in a society of embittered class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat, especially with the inevitable intensification of this struggle by revolution, there cannot be a "middle" line. And the entire essence of the class position and aspirations of the petty bourgeoisie consists in wanting the impossible, striving for the impossible, that is, precisely for such a "middle line."

The third decisive class force was the proletariat, which strove not for "reconciliation" with the bourgeoisie, but for victory over it, for fearless development of the revolution forward and moreover on an international scale.

Such was the objective historical soil that produced Cavaignac. The waverings of the petty bourgeoisie "removed" it from the role of active participant, and, exploiting its fear of trusting the proletariat, the French Cadet, General Cavaignac, proceeded to disarm the Paris workers, to massacre them en masse.

The revolution ended with this historical massacre; the petty bourgeoisie, numerically predominant, was and remained politically impotent as the tail of the bourgeoisie, and three years later in France the Caesarist monarchy was restored again in a particularly vile form.

The historical speech of Tsereteli on June 11, plainly inspired by the Cadet Cavaignacs (perhaps directly inspired by the bourgeois ministers, perhaps indirectly suggested by the bourgeois press and bourgeois public opinion—this distinction is unimportant), this historical speech is remarkable, is indeed historical, because Tsereteli with inimitable naïveté blurted out the "secret disease" of all the petty bourgeoisie, both Socialist Revolutionary and Menshevik. This "secret disease" consists, firstly, in complete inability for independent politics; secondly, in fear of trusting the revolutionary proletariat and supporting its independent policy wholeheartedly; thirdly, in the inevitably ensuing slide into submission to the Cadets or the bourgeoisie in general (that is, submission to the Cavaignacs).

That is the essence of it. It is not Tsereteli or Chernov personally, and not even Kerensky, who is destined to play the role of Cavaignac—for that there will be found other people who will say at the appropriate moment to the Russian Louis Blancs: "step aside"—but Tsereteli and Chernovs are leaders of such a petty-bourgeois policy as makes possible and necessary the appearance of Cavaignacs.

"When the real Cavaignac comes, we shall be with you"—what a splendid promise, what a magnificent intention! Pity only that it reveals the misunderstanding of class struggle typical of sentimental or timid petty bourgeoisie. For Cavaignac is not a chance occurrence, his "coming" is not a single moment. Cavaignac is the representative of a class (counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie), the executor of its policy. And it is precisely this class, precisely this policy that you are supporting right now, gentlemen Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks! To this class and its policy you are giving, while you have a known majority at the present moment in the country, predominance in the government, that is, an excellent base for work.

In fact. At the All-Russian Peasant Congress almost entirely the Socialist Revolutionaries held sway. At the All-Russian Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies an enormous majority for the bloc of Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. The same at the elections to the district dumas of Petrograd. The fact is evident: the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are now the ruling party. And this ruling party voluntarily surrenders power (the majority in the government) to the party of the Cavaignacs!!

Where there is a swamp, devils will be found. Where there is a shaky, wavering petty bourgeoisie, afraid of the development of revolution, the appearance of Cavaignacs is assured.

In Russia there is much now that distinguishes our revolution from the French revolution of 1848: the imperialist war, the proximity of more advanced (and not more backward, as France's were then) countries, an agrarian and national movement. But all this can change only the form of the Cavaignacs' appearance, the moment, external pretexts, and so forth. The essence of the matter this cannot change, for the essence lies in the mutual relations of classes.

In words Louis Blanc too was as far from Cavaignac as heaven from earth. Promises to "struggle in the same ranks" together with revolutionary workers against bourgeois counter-revolutionaries—Louis Blanc gave countless numbers of these. And at the same time not a single Marxist historian, not a single socialist would dare doubt that it was precisely the weakness, shakiness, and credulity toward the bourgeoisie on the part of the Louis Blancs that gave birth to Cavaignac, that gave him success.

Exclusively upon the steadfastness and vigilance, upon the strength of the revolutionary workers of Russia depends whether victory or defeat awaits the Russian Cavaignacs, inevitably produced by the counter-revolutionary nature of Russian bourgeoisie, with the Cadets at the head, and by the shakiness, timidity, and waverings of the petty-bourgeois parties of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks.

*Pravda* no. 83, June 29 (16), 1917

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Pravda*